Bombay High Court
Pankaj Prakash Sardeshpande vs Superintending Engineer And ... on 26 October, 2021
Bench: Ravindra V. Ghuge, S. G. Mehare
1 934-WP.3179-20.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
934 WRIT PETITION NO.3179 OF 2020
PANKAJ PRAKASH SARDESHPANDE
VERSUS
SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER AND COMPETENT AUTHORITY
MSEDCL
...
Advocate for Petitioner : Mr. G. V. Wani h/f Mr. Randive S. S.
Advocate for Respondent No.1 : Mr. Malte Uday S.
...
CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, AND
S. G. MEHARE, JJ.
DATE : 26.10.2021
PER COURT :-
1. We have briefly heard the learned advocates for the
respective sides on the following issues :
(a) The petitioner has been subjected to a full fledged
departmental enquiry followed by the order of
punishment of dismissal from service for his misconducts.
(b) If the enquiry is vitiated or if the findings of the Enquiry
Officer are held to be perverse, a de novo enquiry have to
be conducted in the light of the judgments delivered by
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matters of Workmen of
2 934-WP.3179-20.odt
the Motipur Sugar Factory Pvt. Ltd. Vs. The Motipur
Sugar Factory, AIR 1965 SC 1803, followed by Delhi Cloth
and General Mills Company Limited Vs. Ludh Budh Singh,
1972 (1) SCC 595, Workmen of M/s Firestone Tyre &
Rubber Company of India Vs. Management, AIR 1973 SC
1227 : 1973 SCR (3) 587, Shambhu Nath Goyal Vs. Bank
of Baroda, 1984(4) SCC 491 and Workmen of Firestone,
Bharat Forge Company Ltd. Vs. A.B.Zodge, 1996 (73) FLR
1754 : AIR 1996 SC 1556,
(c) So also, the right of the employer to conduct a de novo
enquiry is well recognized and the Hon'ble Supreme Court
(Five Judges Bench) has held in KSRTC Vs.
Lakshmidevamma, 2001 (2) CLR 640 that the employer
can reserve the right to conduct a de novo enquiry in the
written statement and proceed to conduct such enquiry
before the Labour Court / Tribunal. Such enquiry cannot
be conducted in the High Court.
(d) The petitioner is an Upper Division Clerk and therefore, a
workman under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes
Act, 1947 and the respondent is an industry under Section
3 934-WP.3179-20.odt
2(j) of the Industrial Disputes Act.
(e) The First Appeal of the petitioner questioning his
dismissal from service was considered by the Competent
Authority and the person dealing with the First Appeal
was Mr. Suresh Ganeshkar.
(f) His Second Statutory Appeal was considered by the
Second Appellate Authority and the Officer deciding the
same was again the same person, Mr. Suresh Ganeshkar.
2. Considering the above, we are entertaining this petition
to a limited extent of Mr. Suresh Ganeshkar having dealt with
the First Appeal of the petitioner as well as the Second Appeal.
3. In view of the above, this petition is partly allowed and
the impugned order dated 09.01.2020 passed by the Second
Appellate Authority, namely Mr. Suresh Ganeshkar, is quashed
and set aside. Hence, we issue the following directions :-
(a) The said proceedings are remitted to the Regional
Director and the Second Appellate Authority at
Aurangabad.
(b) Since Mr. Ganeshkar has be replaced, the Second
4 934-WP.3179-20.odt
Appeal of the petitioner shall be decided preferably
within a period of three (3) months from today.
(c) We, however, make it clear that in the event of an
adverse order being passed against the petitioner, he
would be at liberty to assail the said order and seek
redressal of his grievance by approaching the Labour
Court at Jalna or by taking recourse to the remedy of
raising an industrial dispute under Section 2A of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. A Writ Petition on this
count would not be entertained, for being untenable.
(S. G. MEHARE, J.) (RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.)
...
vmk/-
